1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s ownership of a considerable area of Cheongju-si B, 665 square meters.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. In accordance with the Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the unregistered real estate (hereinafter “Before land substitution”) was disposed of as substitute land on May 1, 1979, the land of 536 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) with the land of 665 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The owner’s column of the old land cadastre relating to the land before replotting is indicated as the owner, and the owner’s address is written as F.

In addition, the owner's column for land cadastre of this case is indicated as E's acquisition of ownership on the ground of land substitution on May 2, 1979, and the address is indicated as "F in the area of Sinju".

C. On August 28, 1961, the Plaintiff’s conciliation division G died. On June 15, 201, the Plaintiff, H, I, J, K, K, L, L, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, R, and other co-inheritors, agreed on the division of inherited property that the Plaintiff unilaterally succeeds to the instant land.

On the other hand, a copy of the Plaintiff’s father G’s expulsion refers to the Plaintiff’s address as “JT”.

E. The Cheongju Mayor, a maintenance project executor, applied for the entrustment of registration of land substitution in order to register the preservation of ownership on the instant land. On September 26, 2016, the competent registry officer of the Cheongju District Court dismissed the application for registration on the ground that the details stated in the Cheongju District Court’s land substitution plan do not coincide with the commission document and does not include the resident registration number of the person to whom the substitute was issued in

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that there is no benefit in confirmation of ownership since the registration titleholder is written in the land cadastre of the instant land and the defendant did not assert that the instant land is owned by the State.

In light of Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the plaintiffs' registration of preservation of ownership of the real estate of this case.